On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 13:09 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> I intend, with the support of ais523 and Goethe, to cause the panel in
>> CFJ 2282a to send the following message:
>> {{
>> The panel judges REMAND. Annotations are characterized by their
>> attempt to explain or comment on the object they annotate; truth, in
>> contrast, is not an essentially attribute. In light of this, the panel
>> asks that H. Prior Judge Murphy reconsider whether the purported
>> annotations were annotations and consider whether other requirements
>> (for example, R105-related requirements) were met.
>> }}
>>
> I support; reconsideration by the original judge seems like a sensible
> option where the reasoning has come heavily under attack.Seems affirm with error to me but sure. I support; and having received the necessary support, I send the above message on behalf of the panel. -Goethe
